marcet 

Let’s say you have more chance of understanding quantum mechanics than understanding “economics”… 

Say that the concept of atoms started in ancient Greece with philosophers like Lucretius and Epicurus. For about 1400 years this concept was abandoned because god had created the world in six days and we did not need to know what curry paste the old guy in the sky had used to boil Eve from Adam’s rib…

One of the rule of thumb was expressed in Corinthian 11: 27

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Here, we are not unworthy because we don’t indulge in the stuff called sin… This crap and its biblical deceptive surroundings held up illiterate people at the beckons of stained-glass windows, through which photons cleverly passed through — as if coloured by magic, though some special metals were used in the colouring. The glass-makers had no idea about chemical compositions, but they knew their powder thingies could create various colours. We now know:  

Cadmium Sulphide for Yellow — Gold Chloride for Red — Cobalt Oxide for Blue-Violet — Manganese Dioxide for Purple — Nickel Oxide for Violet — Sulphur for Yellow-Amber — Chromic Oxide for Emerald Green — Uranium Oxide for Fluorescent Yellow, Green — Iron Oxide for Greens and Browns — Selenium Oxide for Reds —Carbon Oxides for Amber-Brown — Antimony Oxides for White — Copper Compounds for Blue, Green, Red —Tin Compounds for White — Lead Compounds for Yellow — Manganese Dioxide as a "decolouring” agent —Sodium Nitrate as a "decolouring” agent as well…

It looks complicated, but many of these compounds are still used in oil paints for professional artists — like Gus, in his spare time. As well, because many of these compounds were RARE and fabricated by burning or cooking something else (rare a well), they were EXPENSIVE. This is possibly why apart from a few window panes using colours, most of the colours were “painted” (stained) by using small amounts of ground glass that had the desire colour. Once painted with gum and ground glass, the clear glass/coloured pane were fired again in an oven at a very specific temperature that would just melt the coloured ground glass into the substrate, but not the glass pane itself. As well, care had to be taken in the heating/cooking process as not to “explode” the glass. This great technological “stained” glass did not involve magic nor gods. But the result did the trick of conveying the power of sunlit godly images contained in the window. Great trick...

Then Galileo Galilei stuff it up by questioning the position of the centre of the universe. And some defying gravity cathedrals crashed back to earth like the Newtonian apple. From then on it was a slow slog towards Einstein theory of relativity which no common mortal understands, except that if we eat too much, we put on weight and can’t run as fast as we did before.. 

Considering our brain could blow up any minute by looking at this, we were saved from insanity by the Higgs field without which everything would fall apart. 

See, it was EASY. All we had to do was to observe what’s out there...

Meanwhile, economics is a different kettle of fish. We choose the value of what’s what by popular choice we call the “market”. There, investors hope to make money with money while avoiding the fate of a duck family crossing the road in front of a bus… There’s nothing democratic about the market. The more money you have the more money you can buy. Even computers can do it! This is contrary to democracy in which everyone has "one buck — one vote". But the rich people love this system because it’s like a cash-cow while the poor people can only dream of making it rich one day… It ain’t going to happen. You started from the mantra that work equals honest subsistence… Yes sure. This is for losers. If you want to make money: money makes money. That’s the only rule in the mirage of economics.

Everyday, economists try to explain to us the value of this and that as everything has gone up or down according to the mood of the market… This is based on the numbers of players manipulating their own confidence. It’s not very scientific, though there are formulas to explain how you win or loose. Predicting a cattle dog’s next move in the Higgs field is much easier. We explained "economy + greed” here: 

pricing collateralised debt credibility...

Unlike Quantum mechanics physicists, the economists' explanations make no sense at all, except you see your work/subsistence-savings vanish into Uncle Scrooge’s pockets, and you curse the 31st of June as it’s time for you to tally your losses and gains over the preceding year, which means how much money have you been able to steal from the system, minus the tax you owe… In the US and other countries, the same happens on a different day of the year, but this is a yearly ritual to the god of cash, nonetheless.

Economists are like structural engineers trying to build the Eiffel Tower with matchsticks… Over and over they try to convince you that it will work, but at this level, their Eiffel Tower is more like the Babel Tower. They cannot agree on which glue to use, on the number of matchsticks nor on the value of gravity. And some smart-arses take short cuts through the fields of derivatives...

One has to go back to the days of Jane Marcet, to understand as much as possible the relativity of the market value… Jane Marcet was a popularising intelligent woman who published books in the vein of Popular Mechanics, Popular Chemistry and Popular Economics… She was very good at writing and publishing about all that was known then in the intellectual sphere, by “interviewing experts"...

"Marcet in her Conversations on Political Economy (published in 1816) also popularised the arguments of such political economists as Adam Smith, Malthus, and above all David Ricardo. This was well received and widely read, though some later economists such as Alfred Marshall were dismissive, to the detriment of its later reputation, and Joseph Schumpeter derided it as "economics for schoolgirls".[5] 

The purpose, however, was an important one that went beyond the lucrative demands of a niche market. Mrs B's flippant pupil Caroline says she would have thought a woman could be excused ignorance of that topic. Mrs B replies tartly, "When you plead in favour of ignorance, there is a strong presumption that you are in the wrong."[10] Marcet's Conversations on Political Economy were an inspiration to Harriet Martineau to introduce economic topics into her writings.[5][11]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Marcet

Harriet Martineau (/ˈmɑːrtənˌoʊ/; 12 June 1802 – 27 June 1876) was an English social theorist often seen as the first female sociologist.[1] She wrote from a sociological, holistic, religious and feminine angle. She translated works by Auguste Comte, and rarely for a woman writer at the time, earned enough to support herself.[2] The young Princess Victoria enjoyed her work and invited her to her 1838 coronation.[3][4] Martineau advised "a focus on all [society's] aspects, including key political, religious, and social institutions". She applied thorough analysis to women's status under men. The novelist Margaret Oliphant called her "a born lecturer and politician... less distinctively affected by her sex than perhaps any other, male or female, of her generation."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Martineau

We need to make a reference in passing to Aphra Behn… 

See: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/32297

Meanwhile:

"Marcet's ... book, Conversations on Chemistry, Intended More Especially for the Female Sex appeared anonymously in 1805,[5] and became her best known work. In summarizing and popularising the work of Humphry Davy, whose lectures she attended, it was one of the first elementary science textbooks. It came with Marcet's drawings of chemical apparatus[9] and stressed the need for experiment and for theoretical rigour.[5] Jane Marcet was not explicitly identified as the author until the 12th edition of 1832.[9] The book went into 16 editions in England, where it was an early inspiration for the young Michael Faraday.[6] It was widely plagiarised in America, appearing there in at least 23 editions.[5]”

Now you know where your electricity comes from… Faraday...

In regard to your electricity bill, this is in the lap of the god of the “Market”…

Governments have great confidence in the market, though economists have no clue about it.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can tell you where you are or what speed you are travelling at, but not at the same time.

In economics, we don’t know where we are, nor where we’re going, nor what speed we’re doing...

But we have to do it, otherwise we’d end up as a sharing communistic entity… This would be Hell for capitalists...

So we slog…

Beware of the fat man and his "Freedom Freedom Freedom"... He's a trickster, as seen before when he helped Tony Abbott destroy the planet some more. A vote for Clive Palmer at the next elections is one for ScoMo who is also a shifty trickster. If you have to vote, go for the thinking socialists or the "Greens"... You might not be able to make as much Freedom-cash as the rich fat guy, but your conscience will be cleaner, on a pathway to save the planet from greed.

GL.

Not an economist.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!